Routledge Library Editions: The Anglo-Saxon World [1 ed.] 9781032529769, 9781032539850, 9781032540887, 9781003414629, 1032529768

Citation preview

ROUTLEDGE LIBRARY EDITIONS: THE ANGLO-SAXON WORLD

Volume 9

THE EXETER BOOK

THE EXETER BOOK

Edited by GEORGE PHILIP KRAPP AND ELLIOTT VAN KIRK DOBBIE

First published in 1936 by George Routledge & Sons and Columbia University Press This edition first published in 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 1936 Columbia University Press All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-032-52976-9 (Set) ISBN: 978-1-032-53985-0 (Volume 9) (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-54088-7 (Volume 9) (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-41462-9 (Volume 9) (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003414629 Publisher’s Note The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent. Disclaimer The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and would welcome correspondence from those they have been unable to trace.

THE

EXETER BOOK EDITED BY

GEORGE PHILIP KRAPP LATE PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY AND

ELLIOTT VAN KIRK DOBBIE PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

NEW YORK: COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON: ROUTLEDGE AND KEGAN PAUL

Copyright 1936 Columbia University Press First printing 1936 Third printing 1966 Printed in the United States of America

PREFACE In presenting this volume as the joint production of Professor Krapp and myself, it seems proper to explain which parts of the book were written by him, and which by me. At the time of his death in April, 1934, Professor Krapp had prepared the text and notes for CHRIST, GUTHLAC, AZARIAS, the WANDERER, the GIFTS OF MEN, PRECEPTS, the FORTUNES OF MEN, the ORDER OF THE WORLD, MAXIMS I, the RIMING POEM, and the PANTHER, and had written a first draft of the discussions of CHRIST, GUTHLAC, and AZARIAS on pp. xxvff. of the Introduction. These sections of the book, except for a final revision for form, remain substantially as Professor Krapp left them, though I have not hesitated to make some additions and alterations in the light of new and relevant material which has come to my notice. The remainder of the book is my own work. In form, this volume follows as closely as possible the preceding volumes of the Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records. The text has been based on the admirably clear facsimile edition of the Exeter Book published in 1933, with the introductory chapters by Max Forster, R. W. Chambers, and Robin Flower; in the few cases in which recourse to other authorities has been necessary, definite acknowledgement of obligation has been made. The reading wenafi, in CHRIST 26, appears for the first time in the present text. No attempt has been made to restore the damaged parts of the text of the Exeter Book. The extent of the missing matter has been indicated in the usual way, by points within brackets, each point representing a letter, or space for a letter, in the manuscript. The Bibliography, though fuller than in the preceding volumes, is to some extent selective. In particular, no attempt has been made to include items of more general literary interest, as, for instance, on the historical and ethnological problems connected with WIDSITH and DEOR, or the comparative study of the riddles, or themes so widespread in medieval literature as

vi

PREFACE

the Descent into Hell, the Judgment Day, or the dialogue of the Soul and the Body. It is an agreeable task to express my gratitude to Professor R. W. Chambers, of University College, London, who supplied the ultra-violet print from which the text of fol. 8a has been made; to Professor Max Forster, of Yale University, who kindly offered to read the description of the Exeter Book, and made a number of very helpful suggestions; and to two of my teachers in Columbia University, Professor Harry Morgan Ayres, to whose generous counsel and discriminating criticism, especially in connection with the Introduction, I am heavily indebted, and Professor Ernest Hunter Wright, whose kindly encouragement has helped me in all stages of my work. Above all, I wish to express to the Council for Research in the Humanities of Columbia University my appreciation of its continued generous support of this series. E. V. K. D. January, 1936

CONTENTS PREFACE INTRODUCTION BIBLIOGRAPHY TEXTS Christ Guthlac Azarias The Phoenix Juliana The Wanderer The Gifts of Men Precepts The Seafarer Vainglory Widsith The Fortunes of Men Maxims I The Order of the World The Riming Poem The Panther The Whale The Partridge Soul and Body II Deor Wulf and Eadwacer Riddles 1-59 The Wife's Lament The Judgment Day I Resignation The Descent into Hell Alms-Giving Pharaoh The Lord's Prayer I

v ix Ixxxix 3 49 88 94 113 134 137 140 143 147 149 154 156 163 166 169 171 174 174 178 179 180 210 212 215 219 223 223 223

viil

CONTENTS

Homiletic Fragment II Riddle 306 Riddle 60 . . . The Husband's Message The Ruin Riddles 61-95 NOTES

224 224 225 225 227 229 245

INTRODUCTION I THE MANUSCRIPT The Exeter Book, the largest and probably the best known of the four great miscellanies of Anglo-Saxon poetry, receives its name from the fact that it is preserved in the library of Exeter Cathedral, having been given to the cathedral by Leofric, the first bishop of Exeter, who died in 1072. In the list of Leofric's donations to Exeter Cathedral1 is a manuscript described as -i- mycel englisc boc be gehwilcum pingum on leofiwisan geworht. That this volume was the Exeter Book, or Codex Exoniensis, or Liber Exoniensis, as it has been variously called, is hardly a matter of doubt, though the ground of proof is limited to the fact that no other book is known to have been among Leofric's donations to which the description in the list would apply. A number of the other manuscripts which were given to the cathedral by Leofric contain inscriptions recording the fact of the gift;2 there is no such inscription in the Exeter Book, unless it was written on the leaf which has been lost before fol. 8,3 nor is there any internal evidence except the donation list itself, to connect the manuscript with Leofric. But the natural inference that the Exeter Book which we have today is the mycel englisc boc given by Leofric to Exeter Cathedral, has never been challenged. 1 This list is extant in two Anglo-Saxon copies of the second half of the eleventh century, in MS. Auct. D.2.16 of the Bodleian Library, fol. la-2b, and in the Exeter Book itself, fol. la-2b. A Middle English version, in a fifteenth-century hand, is preserved at Exeter Cathedral as Charter no. 2570. The list is edited by Max Forster in The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, pp. 18-32. 2 Forster, in The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, p. 11, note 3, lists nine extant manuscripts with the Leofric inscription. 8 See p. xi, below.

x

INTRODUCTION

The Exeter Book appears to have been written some seventy or eighty years before Leofric became the first bishop of Exeter; of its history during these years we have no knowledge, nor do we know what circumstances occasioned its inclusion in the library of Exeter Cathedral. It is in fact surprising to find a book of this character listed among the service books and other edifying works in Latin and English with which Leofric enriched his cathedral library. Its inclusion may well have been due not to any interest on the part of Leofric in English poetry, but to the fact that the content of the volume was in large part religious and that the first text in it was CHRIST. Of the other extant manuscripts which are known to have been given by Leofric to the cathedral at Exeter, the best known are MS. 41 of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, which contains the only complete text of the Anglo-Saxon version of Bede's Ecclesiastical History, the Anglo-Saxon gospel manuscript, MS. Ii.ii.ll of the University Library, Cambridge, and the so-called Leofric Missal, MS. Bodl. 579 in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. In its present state, the Exeter Book contains 131 parchment leaves. The first leaf, on which there is no text, was not numbered in the foliation as it now stands, which therefore runs only from 1 to 130. Folios 8 to 130, in the present numbering, comprise the Exeter Book proper, the original poetry book which Leofric gave to the library of Exeter Cathedral in the eleventh century. At some time in its history, but before it was studied by John Joscelyn in the sixteenth century,1 this original manuscript was enlarged by the addition of eight folios at the beginning. The first of these eight folios, the unnumbered leaf, contains only the inscription Liber Decani et Capituli Exoniensis, in a modern hand, and the number 3501. The other seven folios of this added portion of the manuscript, folios 1 to 7 in the present numbering, contain legal documents and records of various kinds in Latin and English, in eleventh and twelfthcentury hands. Forster's suggestion2 that these preliminary folios of the Exeter Book once belonged to a gospel manuscript, and most probably to MS. Ii.ii.ll of the Cambridge University 1 2

See The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, p. 91. The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, pp. 13-14.

INTRODUCTION

xi

Library, has since been established as a fact by the discovery1 that a strip of parchment missing at the top of fol. 5 of the Exeter Book is still preserved as fol. 202 of the Cambridge manuscript. The text of CHRIST, the first of the poems of the Exeter Book, begins in an incomplete condition on fol. 8a, a folio having been lost at the beginning of the manuscript before the eight preliminary leaves were added. There is also an older foliation, which differs in many respects from the present numbering, and which on most of the leaves has been clipped away by a binder. At the present time the later foliation is always used. Since the eight folios added at the beginning have no organic relationship with the rest of the manuscript, it is unnecessary to discuss them further. A complete list of their contents is given by Forster in The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, pp. 44r-54. The size of the folios of the Exeter Book is on the average 31.5 by 22 centimeters, that is, approximately 12.5 inches by 8.6 inches. The space covered by the writing on the folios is approximately 24 by 16 centimeters, that is, 9.4 inches by 6.3 inches. The folios of the manuscript were assembled in seventeen gatherings, containing in their present form from five to eight folios each. These gatherings are not provided with signatures, either letters or numbers, such as are found in the Vercelli Book. For convenience of reference, the gatherings may be indicated by Roman numerals, as follows: [I] [II] [III] [IV] [V] [VI] [VII] [VIII] [IX]

fol. 8-14 fol. 15-21 fol. 22-29 fol. 30-37 fol. 38-44 fol. 45-52 fol. 53-60 fol. 61-68 fol. 69-74

[X] [XI] [XII] [XIII] [XIV] [XV] [XVI] [XVII]

fol. 75-82 fol. 83-90 fol. 91-97 fol. 98-105 fol. 106-111 fol. 112-118 fol. 119-125 fol. 126-130

Eight of the seventeen gatherings, [III], [IV], [VI], [VII], [VIII], [X], [XI], and [XIII], still have eight folios each. 1 By Mr. Gustav Malmborg, of Uppsala, in 1934. [I owe this information to the kindness of Professor Forster and of Mr. Malmborg.—E. V. K. D.]

xii

INTRODUCTION

Of these eight complete gatherings, all are made up of the usual four folded sheets except [VI], which is composed of three full sheets and two half-sheets folded in (folios 47 and 51). The other nine gatherings must be supposed either to have lost one or more folios each, or never to have had the full number of eight folios. Gaps in the text indicate the loss of one or more folios at the following places: before folio 8 between folios 37 and 38 between folios 69 and 70 between folios 73 and 74 between folios 97 and 98 between folios 105 and 106 between folios 111 and 112

Forster's complete tabulation of the gatherings of the manuscript indicates that gatherings [I], [V], [IX], [XII], and [XIV], to which these lost folios belonged, were once complete gatherings of four sheets, that is eight folios, each. The four remaining gatherings, [II] [XV], [XVI], and [XVII], on the other hand, appear never to have had more than their present number of folios, that is, seven, seven, seven, and five respectively. The number of lines for which the folios of the manuscript were ruled varies from twenty-one to twenty-three. One or more of the ruled lines were usually left vacant between poems or sections of poems, thus reducing the number of lines of text actually written on the page. In some cases the last word, or part of the last word on a page, has been written at the lower right-hand corner below the last ruled line, thus increasing by one the number of lines written on the page. The number of lines provided for by ruling on the several folios is as follows: 8-14 15-44 45-52 53-82 83-93 94-130

23 lines 22 lines 23 lines 22 lines 21 lines 22 lines

A comparison with the tabulation already given of the gatherings in the manuscript indicates that, with one exception, the number

INTRODUCTION

xiii

of rulings on each folio is constant for each of the gatherings. The single exception is gathering [XII], the first three folios of which were ruled for twenty-one lines each, the last four folios for twenty-two lines each. From the comparatively close correspondence between the gatherings and the ruling of the folios, and the frequent variation between the gatherings in this respect, we may infer that, as in the Vercelli Book, the manuscript was not ruled all at once, but one or more gatherings at a time, as the work progressed. The contents of the folios of the manuscript in terms of the line numbering of this edition are given in Table I, at the end of this Introduction. The poetical portions of the Exeter Book, that is, all exclusive of the later-folios 1 to 7, are written in a single hand, which is large and attractive and, considering the length of the manuscript, remarkably uniform throughout. Flower,1 the most recent scholar to comment on the handwriting of the Exeter Book, believes that there is "such variety in the quality of the script that we must suppose several scribes to have been employed on the writing," but he offers no evidence in support of this opinion. Schipper2 and Wiilker3 both believed the Exeter Book to be the work of one scribe, and there is no reason for dissenting from this conclusion. The variations which we find in the writing of the Exeter Book are by no means too great to be explained as the result of variations in the quality of the parchment and the use of different pens; they are certainly not as great as the variations in the writing of the Vercelli Book, which is generally regarded as the work of a single hand. The date of the handwriting of the Exeter Book is evidently to be placed in the second half of the tenth century. Schipper and Wiilker assigned the manuscript to the beginning of the eleventh century, but an earlier date seems justified. Keller4 believed 1

The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, p. 83. Germania XIX, 327. 3 Grundriss zur Geschichte der angelsiichsischen Litteratur, p. 223. 4 Angelsachsische Palaeographie, p. 40; see also Hoops' Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde I, 102, where Keller places the writing of the Exeter Book during the reign of Edgar, i.e. 959-975. 2

xiv

INTRODUCTION

the Exeter Book to be of about the same date as the Vercelli Book, that is, about 960-980, or perhaps a little earlier than the Vercelli Book. Flower,1 noting the similarity between the handwriting of the Exeter Book and that of Lambeth Palace MS. 149, which contains Latin texts of Bede and Augustine, and the provenance of which can at least be inferred, would place the writing of both manuscripts "in one monastery or in closely associated monasteries in the West Country early in the period 970-990."2 That they could not have been written at Exeter is evident on chronological grounds, since the episcopal establishment at Exeter dates from only 1050; they may however have been written at Crediton, the former seat of the bishopric. There are no illustrations in the Exeter Book, nor any other form of ornamentation, except that in the margins of six of the folios3 we find figures which have been incised in the parchment with some pointed instrument, but without the use of color or ink. According to Forster,4 these incised figures are of a later date than the manuscript, and therefore cannot be the work of the original scribe. The manuscript, though well preserved on the whole, has suffered severe damge in several places. The fact that fol. 8a, the first page preserved of the original manuscript, has been scored over with knife strokes suggests that at one time in its history the book was used as a cutting board. Near the outer margin of this folio, where two very deep strokes come together, a triangular piece has been torn out of the parchment, apparently containing the final n of eadga[n], CHRIST 20. A vessel 1

The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, p. 90. Ker, Medium Mwm II, 230, points out that MS. Bodl. 319, in the Bodleian Library, which contains Isidore's De miraculis Christi, is also written in a hand similar to that of the Exeter Book. He suggests that this MS. is the "Liber Isidori de miraculis Christi" listed among the donations of Leof ric to Exeter Cathedral. Forster, in The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, p. 29, note 107, had suggested the identification of this "Liber Isidori de miraculis Christi" with MS. Bodl. 394, which came from Exeter. 8 Fol. 646 (a rosette), fol. 780 (an angel's head, with wings), fol. 80o (a £>, twice), fol. 876 (a woman's figure), fol. 956 (a P, twice, and a veiled hand, twice), fol. 1230 (a man on horseback, upside down). 2

4

The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, p. 60.

INTRODUCTION

xv

containing liquid, perhaps a beer mug, has made a circular stain near the center of fol. 8a. The liquid has been spilled over a large portion of this page, and has gone through the next two folios also, causing a brown stain on these folios and making the text in some places very difficult to read. This severe damage which fol. 8a has suffered indicates that the lost folio at the beginning of the manuscript was detached from the rest of the book at a very early date, and that from that time on, the book was without a binding at least until after folios 1 to 7 were added at the beginning. At the top of fol. 53 a strip 2.8 inches wide has been cut away, containing the concluding lines of GUTHLAC on one side, and on the other side the matter missing from the text of AZARIAS after preanyd, 1. 28. For a discussion of this missing strip and the extent of the lost portions of GUTHLAC and AZARIAS, see the sections devoted to these poems, on pp. xxxff. of this Introduction. But by far the greatest damage to the manuscript has been done on the last fourteen folios, where a long diagonal burn has destroyed much of the text. The first traces of the burn are to be found on fol. H7a, in the form of two small holes, one on the inner margin just below the middle of the page, the other on the outer margin about one-third of the way down from the top. Nothing is lost from the text on fol. 117 and fol. 118a, but on fol. llSb the final -on of sculon, RESIGNATION 57, is lost, and from that point to the end of the manuscript the losses become increasingly larger. On fol. 126 and the following folios the hole extends from edge to edge of the leaf, and on fol. 130, the last leaf of the manuscript, it is nearly three inches across at its widest part. The extent of the losses in terms of verse lines can readily be traced in the text. Two reproductions of the Exeter Book have been made. The first of these, a pen and ink transcript which imitates the letter forms of the Exeter Book very successfully, was made at the British Museum by Robert Chambers in 1831 and 1832, and collated with the manuscript in the latter year by Sir Frederick Madden. This transcript has since been preserved at the British Museum as Additional MS. 9067. The second

xvi

INTRODUCTION

reproduction of the Exeter Book is the complete photographic facsimile published in 1933 by the Dean and Chapter of Exeter Cathedral, with introductory chapters on the history and present state of the manuscript by R. W. Chambers, Max Forster, and Robin Flower. II

SECTIONAL DIVISIONS IN THE MANUSCRIPT The poems of the Exeter Book are not provided with titles in the manuscript. The beginning of each poem, and of each section within a poem, is indicated by a large initial capital, and in most cases by the writing in smaller capitals of part or all of the remainder of the first line of the poem or section. The initial capitals are usually three or four lines tall; some of them are larger, and extend through as many as six lines of text. Although not as ornate as the large capitals of the Junius Manuscript, they are as a rule more ornate than those of the Vercelli Book. The capitalization of the remainder of the first line of a poem varies throughout the manuscript. Usually only the rest of the first word of a poem is written in capitals, sometimes only part of the first word. Six of the longer poems, GUTHLAC, PHOENIX, JULIANA, GIFTS OF MEN, WIDSITH, and SOUL AND BODY II, show a more extensive use of capitals, the whole, or in several cases all but a few letters, of the first line being capitalized. The lost beginning of CHRIST was undoubtedly capitalized in the same way. The end of a poem is indicated by spacing, usually only one line, but sometimes two, and by one of the punctuation devices described in a later section of this Introduction.1 In the latter part of the manuscript the spacing between poems is frequently lacking, perhaps because of a desire to save space. The riddles in the manuscript have, as a general rule, initial capitalization and end punctuation similar to that of the shorter poems, but there is no spacing between the riddles. At three places in the manuscript, a break in the subject matter indicates 1

See p. xxiii, below.

INTRODUCTION

xvii

that a text which, on the evidence of capitalization and punctuation, we should take to be a single riddle, is in reality two riddles, the end punctuation and capitalization between the two having been omitted. The pairs of riddles which are written together in this way are Riddles 2 and 3,42 and 43, and 47 and 48. The longer poems of the manuscript, and a few of the shorter poems as well, are divided into sections similar to those which we find in the other Anglo-Saxon poetical manuscripts. The poems which are divided into sections in this way are CHRIST, GUTHLAC, AZARIAS, the PHOENIX, JULIANA, MAXIMS I, DEOR, the JUDGMENT DAY I, and the HUSBAND'S MESSAGE. The sections in the poems of the Exeter Book are not numbered, as in BEOWULF, JUDITH, ELENE, and the Junius Manuscript, but, like the poems themselves, are indicated only by capitalization, spacing, and punctuation. At the beginning of a section, except of course in the first section of a poem, usually only the first word or part of the first word is capitalized; but at three places in the manuscript which are usually taken to be the beginnings of sections and not of poems, we have the fuller capitalization which has been mentioned above, that is, a full line, or nearly full line, of capitals in addition to the initial large capital. These three places are CHRIST, 11. 440 and 867, and GUTHLAC, 1. 879. Here we also have double spacing, instead of the single spacing which we usually find between sections, and a more extensive use of punctuation than is usual at sectional divisions. The three more important divisions thus indicated may be taken, therefore, as representing, in the intent of the scribe, major divisions similar to those at the beginning of GUTHLAC, PHOENIX, and the other poems which have capitalization of the entire first line in the manuscript. The bearing which the capitalization, punctuation, and spacing of these major sectional divisions has upon the much debated question of the unity of CHRIST and GUTHLAC, will be discussed in a later section of this Introduction, devoted to the poems of the manuscript.1 None of the sections of the Exeter Book begins or ends in the middle of a verse line or of a sentence, and, for the most part, the sectional divisions of the manuscript correspond closely to natural 1

See pp. xxvff., below.

xviii

INTRODUCTION

divisions of thought. A record of the sectional divisions in the poems of the Exeter Book will be found in Table II, at the end of this Introduction. Ill

SMALL CAPITALS IN THE MANUSCRIPT Nearly eight hundred small capitals occur in the Exeter Book. Of these small capitals somewhat more than half are initial 7, most frequently in the word in, but also in ic, is, iu, and other words. The small capitals in these words which begin with i are more frequent in the Exeter Book than in the Vercelli Book, but seem to have been used for the same purpose as in the Vercelli Book, that is, not as a "capital" at all, but rather to give the i an easily recognizable form, and to prevent the confusion of in with m, and the like.1 Concerning the small capitals other than 7, practically no generalizations can be made. Most of them occur after a point in the manuscript, at the beginning of a half-line. In the two sww-passages a structural intention can be discovered in the use of the small capitals, in CHRIST, 11.664-681, in which sum and its inflectional forms are without exception written with a small capital, and in the FORTUNES OF MEN, in which sum and its forms are usually, but not invariably, written with a small capital. But except for these two passages, no intention of indicating syntactical units, such as we frequently find in the Vercelli Book, can be traced in the Exeter Book, and there seems to be no reasoned variation in the size of the small capitals in the Exeter Book. Proper names as such are not capitalized in the Exeter Book. In JULIANA, the name luliana and its inflected form lulianan, wherever they occur, are written with small capitals, but the other proper names in the poem are not capitalized, and the capitals in luliana and lulianan are probably to be taken simply as instances of capitalized initial 7 rather than as the intentional capitalization of a proper name. Similarly in the DESCENT INTO HELL, the name lohannes has a small capital 7 at 11. 23 and 50 1

See Records 77, The Vercelli Book, p. xxii.

INTRODUCTION

xix

(but not at 1.135), and lordane is written with a small capital / at 1. 135 (but not at 1. 131). The numerous other proper names in the DESCENT INTO HELL have no capitalization. In GUTHLAC, the name gudlac is written twice (11. 239, 434) with rather large g's, which are probably to be taken as small capitals, and the first a in adam, Gum. 826, seems to have been intended as a small capital. But except for the instances noted, there is no capitalization of proper names in the manuscript. The words sanctus, sancta occur with a small capital three times, twice in CHRIST, 11. 50 and 88 (both times in the abbreviated form Sea, and once in the PANTHER, 1. 69 (in the abbreviated form Scs). The maria which follows Sea, CHR. 88, is not capitalized. The small capitals of the Exeter Book vary considerably in size, and are not as easily distinguishable from ordinary small letters as those of the Vercelli Book. In most cases the small capitals are identical in form with small letters, differing from them only in size, and it is then frequently very difficult to tell whether a letter was intended as a small capital or not. This is particularly true of initial #; the form D does not occur as a small capital in the Exeter Book. A list of the small capitals in the poems of the Exeter Book is given in Table III at the end of this Introduction. IV

ABBREVIATIONS IN THE MANUSCRIPT Abbreviations are very sparingly used throughout the Exeter Book, and those which we find are of the most usual types: (1) the tilde or macron, usually over a vowel, but sometimes over a consonant, to indicate the omission of a letter or letters following, (2) p for pset, (3) 7 for ond, and a few of the customary abbreviations in Latin words, such as scs for sanctus. These abbreviations have all been resolved without comment in the text, except in a few cases of unusual interest. The tilde occurs most frequently in the abbreviation of the dative plural ending -unij but the usage of the Exeter Book, like that of other Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, is by no means consistent with respect to this abbreviation, and the unabbrevi-

xx

INTRODUCTION

ated form of the ending -urn is more frequent throughout the manuscript than the abbreviated form. Other abbreviations in which the tilde is used for an omitted m are: pa for pam, hi for him, both of which are frequent; also syle for symle, as in CHR. 108, nype for nympe, JUDGMENT DAY 38, fryfie, for frymfie, CHR. 223,pry iorprym, as in CHR. 1063, and similarlyprymes, JUL. 280, pryme, GUTH. 169, and compounds such as mxgen prymes, PH. 665, pry sittende, JUL. 726; also ha for ham, MAXIMS I, 105, gehwd for gehwam, ORDER or THE WORLD 6, su for sum, as in GUTH. 517, drea for dream, as in GUTH. 495, tryman for trymman, MAXIMS I, 46, and trymad, Az. 84, mdn fre men dum, PH. 6, fro iorfrom, both as a preposition, PH. 524, and as an adjective, GIFTS 77, cwo for cwom, CHR. 1160, bicwo for bicwom, CHR. 1105, bind for binom, RID. 26, 2, and in RID. 90, 3 the Latin misare for misarem. The tilde is used three times to abbreviate ge: g pone for geponc, GUTH. 368, g scop for gescop, PH. 84, and monig for monige, MAXIMS 1,167. The word ponne is usually abbreviated by means of the tilde, aspon or fion\ for instance, in CHRIST the unabbreviated form, ponne or 'donne, is found only thirteen times out of the eighty-two occurrences of the word. The less usual abbreviation with two w's occurs five times in the manuscript, fionn, CHR. 791, and ponn, GUTH. 1126, SOUL AND BODY II, 63, RESIGNATION 56, RUIN 42. The abbreviations p for pxt and fte for pxtte are used throughout the manuscript, but are not as frequent as the unabbreviated forms. The abbreviation opp for oppdet does not occur. The word ond, and, both as a conjunction and as the first element of a compound, is regularly represented by the insular abbreviation 7. Examples of the use of this abbreviation as the first element of a compound are jcwis, GUTH. 1026, Jgiet, CHR. 666, 1380, jgit, PRECEPTS 50, jlean, CHR. 831, jsxc, CHR. 655, jsacan, CHR. 1593, GUTH. 210, etc., jsware, CHR. 184, GUTH. 1224, JUL. 105, etc., jswarode, GUTH. 590, jweard, CHR. 1052, 1084, etc., jwis, JUL. 244, and jwrafi, PANTHER 17. The form jdettan, an error for ondettan or andettan, occurs in JUL. 456, and jweorc, an error for hondweorc or handweorc, at RID. 5, 8. The word ond, and as a conjunction is written out only seven times in the manuscript, always as ond, CHR. 927, 1011,

INTRODUCTION

xxi

1225, GUTH. 745, Az. 117, WIDS. 1136, and RIMING POEM 58. As the first element of a compound it is written out seven times, ondsware, GUTH. 293, RID. 55,15, ondgiete, GUTH. 766, ondlongne, GUTH. 1277, ondwyrdan, SOUL AND BODY II, 82, ondgiet, RESIGNATION 22, and ondfengan, RID. 61, 7. Since the word when written out invariably appears as ond, the abbreviation has been regularly resolved as ond in the text of the present edition. At Az. 100, in the Latin context lux 7 tenebra, it has been resolved as et. In the Latin text of RIDDLE 90, the continental ligature & appears twice (11. 2, 4) in somewhat different forms, and has been resolved as et\ the unabbreviated form et occurs in 1. 3 of the same riddle. Finally, there are a few Latin abbreviations, scs for sanctus, PANTHER 69, sea for sancta, CHR. 50, 88, and f nex for pernex, RID. 40, 66. V

PUNCTUATION AND ACCENT MARKS Except for the curious collocations of punctuation marks which occur at the ends of poems and of sections of poems, the only mark of punctuation which we find in the Exeter Book is the point. Throughout the greater part of the manuscript, the point is sporadic in its occurrence, and could hardly have been intended to serve as a metrical punctuation such as we find in the Junius Manuscript. But at one place in the Exeter Book, in the second part of CHRIST, the use of the point is very frequent and regular, resembling very closely the metrical pointing of the Junius Manuscript. In section [V] of CHRIST (the first section of the poem which is sufficiently legible throughout to be used for statistical comparisons) there are only three points (after gesceafta, 1. 4026, herenis, 1. 4156, and weoroda, 1. 4286), and in 11. 440-479 of section [VI] only five points (after geceas, 1. 4466, ofiywden, 1. 4546, dydon, 1. 4556, rimes, 1. 4676, heredon, 1. 4706). But beginning with onsien, 1. 4806, and continuing to the end of section [VI], there is a point after every half-line, except after 11. 484a, 4910, 5160 (unless the dot at the end of the upstroke of a in semninga, 1. 4910, and mfruma, 1. 5160, may be taken as also

xxii

INTRODUCTION

fulfilling the function of a point). In section [VII] the same frequency of points continues, a point at the end of every halfline, with only occasional omissions, as far as the foot of fol. 156 (1. 556); but fol. 160 has only five points, and throughout the rest of the poem the pointing is only casual. We also find very frequent pointing in the catalogues in WIDSITH; for instance, in the thirty-four half-lines of WIDS. 18-34, there are twentyseven points, all of which occur at the ends of half-lines. Similarly, in the twenty-six half-lines of WIDS. 75-87, there are twenty-four points, nineteen of which occur at the ends of half-lines, the other five in the middle of the long half-lines 76a, 80a, 810, 830, and 870. In the FORTUNES OF MEN the pointing is very regular, and more clearly structural than in any other poem. The word sum (with its forms sume and sitmum), which occurs twenty-five times in the poem, usually with a small capital 5, is preceded in each case by a point, the punctuation setting off in this way one sum passage from another. Similarly, in CHR. 664-681, each sum in the manuscript is preceded by a point. But, for the most part, the pointing of the manucript cannot be said to be either metrical or structural. With a comparatively few exceptions, the points in the manuscript all occur at the ends of half-lines. But occasionally we find a point within a half-line, as in hddo • gebodade, CHR. 2026, ne pxr hleonafi • oo • PH. 256, swa us gefreogum • gleawe, PH. 296, seed • to operre, JUL. 1150, para waes • wala, WIDS. 140. Sometimes a point occurring within a half-line serves to mark a natural pause within the half-line, as in ne toforht • ne tofxgen WAND. 680, or hwxr cwom mearg • hwser cwom mago • id. 920, or in the WIDSITH passage, 11. 75-87, mentioned above. Occasionally we find a point dividing the two parts of a compound word, as in farofi • lacende, WHALE 20. A favorite device of this scribe is to set off by points the word a?, "law," not only as a separate word, as in pa pe her crisles • % • GUTH. 236, pe his • se • healden, id. 556, pa pe dryhtnes • a? • JUL. 136, but also as an element of a compound, as in a? • fxstra, GUTH. 5266, a? • fremmendray JUL. 6480.1 1

The pointing of monosyllables in this way is most probably to be connected with the placing of points before and after numerals; see Forster in The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, p. 62.

INTRODUCTION

xxiii

Still a further use of the point in the Exeter Book is to set off from their context the runes which occur in the texts—in the Cynewulfian runic signatures in CHRIST and JULIANA, at 1. 23 of the RUIN, and in the riddles. Forster points out1 that the scribe of the Exeter Book distinguished in the pointing between runes which are to be taken singly, as standing either for words or for their own letter values (as in the Cynewulfian signatures), and a series of runes which are to be read as a group (as in RIDDLES 19 and 75). In the first case the runes are set off singly by points; in the second case the rune groups are set off by points, with no pointing between the runes of a group. With the single exception of RIDDLE 64, 5, where the rune V should evidently be followed by a point, Forster's generalization seems to hold true for all the runes in the manuscript; and in the text of this edition, therefore, the manuscript pointing of the runes, as well as of the groups of Roman letters in RIDDLE 36, will be observed. In studying the punctuation of the Exeter Book from the manuscript itself or from the facsimile edition, care must be taken not to confuse the points which are intended as marks of punctuation with the points which the scribe of the Exeter Book regularly places at the end of the upstroke in the letters / and a. The ends of poems, or of sections of poems, are usually indicated in the Exeter Book, as in other Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, by : 7 or :^, or by combinations of these groups. In general, an attempt is made to distinguish the more important divisions of the manuscript by a more extensive use of these symbols. For instance, whereas the sections of CHRIST ordinarily close with a simple : 7, the three principal divisions of the poem are marked off more elaborately, with :^Am:7 after section [V], : ^: 7:7:7 after section [X], and : ~: 7 at the end of the poem. In GUTHLAC, section [IX], the last section of the first part of the poem, closes with ^i^, as we should expect, but the other sections also frequently have : 7: ~ or : ^: 7 instead of the simple 17. Throughout the manuscript usage varies considerably, but as a general rule we find : 7 at the ends of sections, or of shorter poems, such as the FORTUNES OF MEN or the PAR1

The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, p. 62, note 21.

xxiv

INTRODUCTION

TRIDGE, or of riddles, the more elaborate groups being usually reserved for the longer poems. ACCENT MARKS IN THE MANUSCRIPT There are nearly six hundred acute accent marks in the Exeter Book. More than five-sixths of these accent marks occur over etymologically long vowels. But there are also a number of instances in which an accent mark occurs over an etymologically short vowel, as, for instance, cynn, CHR. 386, c$n, id. 961, syn wrxce, id. 794, w$n, MAXIMS I, 106,frdm, CHR. 658, wdnn, id. 1427, tinder, id. 1620, of 6nn, GUTH. 85, JUL. 377, tipp, GUTH. 97, tip, JUL. 62, 644, VAINGLORY 53, RID. 55, 5, earfeda, JUL. 626, dc (the conjunction), JUDGMENT DAY I, 20. In some instances an accent mark on a short vowel can be interpreted as indicating a stressed syllable, as in the numerous compounds with un-, for instance, tinmxte, CHR. 953, tinsofte, CHR. 1356, tincyWu, GUTH. 855, tinrim, JUL. 43, or in the preposition on in a stressed position, CHR. 1244, PH. 97, PANTHER 10, etc. But on, both as a preposition and as the first element of a verb, sometimes bears an accent in the unstressed position, as in GUTH. 104,148, JUL. 253, and 6n hrered, GUTH. 37, dnboren, id. 944, dnwend, JUL. 144, etc., and here we may perhaps assume an intent to indicate syllabic division, as in the frequent occurrence of the accent mark on the verbal prefix a-, for instance, dworpen, CHR. 98, dlxtan, id. 167, d hofun, id. 502, etc. In a few cases the placing of the accent mark seems inexplicable: sunndn, CHR. 114, dnd, id. 1420, mdnd, JUL. 3Q,hlimmdn, SEAF. 18 (where the scribe may have taken the word to be a compound of hlyn and man), and wundenlocc, RID. 25, 11 (if the mark over e in this word was intended for an accent,—which is at least doubtful). It is interesting that in two places the word man, "evil," was spelled mon, but provided with an accent mark, PRECEPTS 82, MAXIMS I, 195. The word mdn "man," is also written twice with an accent mark, GUTH. 989, MAXIMS I, 111. In a few places an etymologically long vowel is doubled, and an accent mark written above: gdod, Az. 88, RID. 80,10,60, PH, 25, Mir, FORTUNES 70, da, RIMING POEM 87, RID. 34, 6, Mid, PARTRIDGE 5, foot, RID. 81, 3.

INTRODUCTION

xxv

The frequency of the accent marks varies from poem to poem. In the four long poems the percentage of accent marks in terms of verse lines is remarkably constant; in CHRIST there are 146 accents, or .087 accents per line, in GUTHLAC 111 accents, or .081 accents per line, in the PHOENIX 57 accents, or .084 accents per line, and in JULIANA 78 accents, or .107 accents per line. But in the shorter poems, as we might expect, the variation in the frequency of the accent marks is much greater. In the 191 lines of AZARIAS, for example, there are only six accents, and in the WANDERER only one accent, whereas the SEAFARER has seven accents, and the RIMING POEM, in which the percentage of accents is higher than in any other poem of the manuscript, has twenty-four accents in only 87 lines. A list of the accent marks of the Exeter Book is given in Table IV, at the end of this Introduction. In this list the word division of the manuscript is followed, and the end of a line in the manuscript is indicated by a vertical bar. VI

THE POEMS IN THE MANUSCRIPT 1. CHRIST The long debated and still debatable question of the unity of CHRIST, the first poem in the Exeter Book, may best be approached by a consideration of the manuscript evidence. The first important break in the text of the Exeter Book occurs on fol. 140, at CHRIST 439 in the line numbering of the present edition, where we find all the usual marks of a major division of the manuscript, that is, more extensive end punctuation than is usual between sections, double spacing instead of single, and capitalization of the entire first line of the following section.1 On fol. 206, at CHRIST 866, we again have the usual punctuation and spacing of a major division, and capitalization of all but a few letters of the first line of the following section. A third major division comes at the foot of fol. 32a, at the end of CHRIST, according to the division into poems adopted in this 1

See p. xvii, above.

xxvi

INTRODUCTION

edition. These major divisions of the manuscript clearly indicate three distinct structural units, which, so far as the evidence of the manuscript goes, may be interpreted either as separate poems or as parts of a single poem. The first of these structural units, CHRIST 1-439, comprising four minor sectional divisions of the manuscript, contains twelve short passages written in a lyric or hymnic tone, all (except of course the first, the beginning of which is lost) beginning with the exclamation Eda. These twelve passages are based chiefly,1 according to Cook, on a series of antiphons, the seven Greater Antiphons of Advent (the "seven O's"), four other antiphons associated in liturgical use with the Greater Antiphons, and two antiphons for Lauds on Trinity Sunday, in the Sarum Use (these two antiphons being combined as one in the poem).2 Since the beginning of CHRIST is lost, it is impossible to tell with certainty how much matter is missing of this first major division. The surviving text from 1. 1 through 1. 17 is based on the antiphon 0 Rex gentium, and according to Cook the missing parts belonging to this portion of the poet's paraphrase "can scarcely have exceeded a dozen lines at most." These dozen lines added to the seventeen remaining in the manuscript would give a paragraph of twenty-nine lines based on the antiphon 0 Rex gentium. But besides these dozen lines, more was undoubtedly contained on the missing folio, most probably one or two more Eda passages similar in length and subject matter to the Eda passages which follow. We have thus in 11. 1-439 a homogeneity of structure and style which reinforces the indication given by the manuscript record that these lines are to be taken as a structural unit in the intent of the scribe and, probably, of the author, and CHRIST 1-439 may accordingly be numbered I as constituting a major division of the text. 1 No specific source is known for the dialogue in 11. 164-213. Cook, Journal of Germanic Philology IV, 42Iff., would connect these lines with similar dialogues in the homiletic writings of certain of the Church Fathers. 2 See Cook, The Christ of Cynewulf, pp. 71ff. A detailed study of these antiphons in their relation to CHRIST I is given by E. Burgert, The Dependence of Part I of Cynewulfs Christ upon the Antiphonary (Washington, D. C., 1921).

INTRODUCTION

xxvii

The second structural unit of the manuscript, CHRIST 440866, comprises five minor sectional divisions, and is a narrative of the Ascension of Christ. The principal source of this unit is the concluding part of the Ascension sermon of Pope Gregory the Great.1 The third structural unit of the manuscript, CHRIST 867-1664, comprises seven minor sectional divisions. It is a description of the Last Judgment, and the appearance of Christ to judge mankind. For this division of the manuscript much less definite origins can be assigned than for the two preceding divisions. According to Cook,2 one of the chief sources is an alphabetic hymn quoted by Bede in his De arte metrica. There are other sources for the various parts of this text, too many to enumerate. Considerations of internal structure thus reinforce the evidence of the manuscript that each of these two divisions of the manuscript was intended as a distinct and separate unit of composition, similar to the unit which we have already distinguished as CHRIST I, and we may designate them accordingly as CHRIST II and CHRIST III. These three divisions of the manuscript which make up the text of CHRIST derive a certain degree of unity from the continuity of their subject matter. But, as we have seen, this continuity is not that of a connected narrative or exposition, but rather a general similarity of theme and treatment. That the similarity of these three parts is great enough to justify the conviction that we have in them elements of a work conceived as a unity is a point on which there may well be difference of opinion, though the probabilities are that at least the person who combined these parts into the manuscript form intended them to be so regarded. Those editors and commentators who have ventured to supply descriptive titles for the three parts of CHRIST have agreed in those titles with reasonable closeness, but as regards the unity or diversity of origin of the three parts, they have been far from unanimous. Dietrich,3 for example, gave to the first part, 11. 1-439, the title, 1

Horn, in Evang. II, 29, §§9-11, printed by Migne, Patrol, lat. LXXVI, 1218f. Cook, pp. 116ff., also cites an Ascension hymn ascribed to Bede. 2 Modern Language Notes IV, 341ff., and see his edition, pp. I7lff. 3 Zeitschriftfiir deutsches Altertum IX, 193ff.

xxviii

INTRODUCTION

"I. die ankunft Christ! auf erden." He followed this by "II. seine himmelfahrt," beginning with 1.440 and extending through I. 778, and this in turn by "III. seine Wiederkunft zum gericht," which includes CHRIST 779-1664 and also the passage beginning Se bid gefeana fxgrast, which in the present text is numbered GUTHLAC 1-29.1 It will be seen that Dietrich ignored the major division in the manuscript after 1. 866, and assumed a major division after 1. 778, thus attaching the passage containing the runic signature to the beginning of CHRIST III instead of to the end of CHRIST II, as the evidence of the manuscript suggests. He also ignored the major division in the manuscript after CHRIST 1664, thus treating the passage beginning Se bid gefeana fxgrast as the end of CHRIST and not as the beginning of a new poem. He regarded the three parts as constituting a single poem, the theme of which is "das dreifache kommen Christi." Grein also added the Se bid gefeana fxgrast passage to the end of CHRIST, dividing his whole text into twenty-two sections, without indication of major divisions and with no descriptive titles. Gollancz, in his separate edition of CHRIST (1892), divides the poem into three parts, I. The Nativity, 11. 1-439, II. The Ascension, 11. 440-866, and III. The Day of Judgment, 11. 867-1664, and so also in his Exeter Book (1895). He takes the Se bid gefeana fsegrast passage as a "prelude" to GUTHLAC, and the three parts of CHRIST as parts of a single poem. Trautmann2 makes the following divisions: I. Christi Geburt, 11. 1439, II. Himmelfahrt, 11. 440-866, III. Jiingste Gericht, 11. 8671664, regarding these as three separate poems, of which Cynewulf wrote only the second, containing the runic signature. Blackburn3 also sees here three separate poems, for which he does not supply titles, but describes the first as lyric, the second as homiletic, and the third as descriptive. Assmann, in the Bibliothek, follows Dietrich both in the main divisions of the text and in the titles given to them. Cook divides as follows: I. 1 A discussion of the relationship of these lines to CHRIST and GUTHLAC will be given in the part of this Introduction devoted to the latter poem; see p. xxx, below. *Anglia XVIII, 382ff. Mwg/taXIX, 89ff.

INTRODUCTION

xxix

The Advent, 11. 1-439, II. The Ascension, 11. 440-866, III. The Doomsday, 11. 867-1664, thus following the division indicated in the manuscript. He takes the three parts as constituting a single poem, the whole of which he assumes was written by Cynewulf. The passage beginning Se bid gefeanafxgrast he does not attach to his third part of CHRIST, but prints it as a sort of appendix, without committing himself on the question of its proper place. Brandl1 sees three separate poems in the three divisions of the manuscript, and accepts II, 11. 440-866, as by Cynewulf on the evidence of the runic signature, but thinks I is by an earlier, III by a later writer. Moore2 thinks I and II possess an organic unity, and that III is a continuation of the "description of the Last Judgment which forms the latter portion of Part II, but that the unity of II and III is mechanical rather than organic." A compromise decision is that expressed by Gerould,3 that "it is certainly unwise at present to feel sure that the poem is a unit; but until more convincing proofs to the contrary are presented than have been hitherto, it is not improper to regard the three parts of the poem as composed by Cynewulf." Since the evidence from internal organization, from the relationship of the text to its several sources, and from the study of the language in which the three parts are written provides no decisive answer either to the question of intended unity of design or to the problem of single or diverse authorship of the three parts, a final answer to these questions must be held in abeyance. It may be pointed out, however, that apart from its possible bearing on the question of unity of authorship, the question whether we have here three separate poems on somewhat related topics or three parts of a single poem approached from several angles, is a distinction with very little difference. The foregoing discussion is not to be taken as an attempt to dispose of the problem of the unity of CHRIST, but rather as an explanation of the conditions in view of which the text as here presented has been arranged. 1

Archiv CXI (1903), 447ff. Journal of English and Germanic Philology XIV (1915), 550ff. 8 Englische Studien XLI (1909), Iff. 2

xxx

INTRODUCTION 2.

GUTHLAC

The text of fol. 326, the first page following the conclusion of CHRIST, begins with the words Se bid gefeana fxgrast, all in capitals except the % (which is inserted within the capital F preceding) and the st of the last word. The formal appearance of this part of the manuscript is therefore similar to that of the three major divisions which make up the text of CHRIST. No other major division of the manuscript is indicated until fol. 446, at GUTHLAC 818 in the line numbering of this edition. The text from Se bid gefeana fxgrast to GUTHLAC 818 seems therefore, on the evidence of the manuscript, to have been intended as a single unit of composition. But the evidence of the subject matter raises a very difficult problem. The first twenty-nine lines, beginning with Se bid gefeana fxgrast, give an account of the joys of the newly arrived soul in Heaven. These lines might be added to the end of CHRIST without too great violence to logical continuity, though they would form something of an anticlimax for that poem; they are certainly only very remotely connected with the narrative of the life of Guthlac which begins with Monge sindon, GUTHLAC 30. In subject matter, therefore, they do not clearly attach themselves either to CHRIST or to GUTHLAC, and it is not impossible that, as Cosijn suggested,1 they formed originally an independent poem or fragment. In this uncertainty we turn again to what seems to have been the intent of the compiler of the Exeter Book, and there can be little doubt that he intended this passage, GUTHLAC 1-29, to be part of the major division of the manuscript which begins at this point and continues with the life of Guthlac. He may thus have thriftily used a fragment for which he wanted to find a place, and the modern editor, unless he is sure he has found the proper place for these lines, may as well leave them there. At 1. 30, with no indication of a break in the manuscript, GUTHLAC takes a fresh start with a discussion of the varied conditions of the good life on earth. This is still a little remote from the main subject, but is drawing nearer. The passage extends through 1. 80, where another step forward is taken in the discussion of 1

Beitrage XXIII, 114.

INTRODUCTION

xxxi

those who commit themselves to a life on westennum, and finally in 1. 93 we arrive at a specific reference to Guthlac. The poem continues then as an orderly narrative to 1. 818, where the major break occurs. With 1. 819 the poem again takes a fresh start, but somewhat remotely, as at the beginning, with a passage on the Creation, the expulsion of Adam and Eve, and the life of man on earth, arriving thus by steps again at Guthlac in 1. 878 and continuing thereafter with the story of the saint's temptations and of his final illness and death. The poem consists thus of two definite parts, GUTHLAC I and II or GUTHLAC A and B, and this division into parts is supported both by the evidence of the manuscript and by the internal evidence of the manner of treatment of the material. The conclusion of GUTHLAC was lost when the top of fol. 53, containing probably four lines of text on each side, was cut away. On fol. 530, with what is now the first line of the damaged leaf, begins the text of AZARIAS. Whether the four manuscript lines (approximately six verse lines) lost at the top of fol. 53a are all that has been lost from the end of GUTHLAC, or whether more has been lost, it is impossible to tell with certainty from the evidence of the manuscript. Fol. 53 is the first leaf of a new gathering, and it has been suggested1 that a whole gathering has been lost between folios 52 and 53, containing the end of GUTHLAC, the beginning of AZARIAS (which seems unduly abrupt as it stands in the manuscript), and perhaps another poem between GUTHLAC and AZARIAS. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that there was no spacing before the extant part of the text of AZARIAS, the lower tips of two letters being clearly visible at the top of fol. 530, above the words Him pa Azarias, the first words preserved in the text of the poem. In this part of the manuscript the beginning of a new poem would normally be marked by one or two lines of spacing. Also, only the first letter of the first line of AZARIAS is capitalized, instead of the entire line, as is customary at the beginning of a poem in this part of the manuscript. It is therefore quite 1

Most recently by Forster in The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, p. 58.

xxxii

INTRODUCTION

possible, on the evidence afforded by the manuscript, that one or more sections of text have been lost at the beginning of AZARIAS. If so, then no limit is indicated for the lost matter at the end of GUTHLAC, and a page or more may well have been lost from that poem, enough, for example, for a runic signature. The bearing of these possibilities upon the structural problems in AZARIAS will be discussed in the section of this Introduction devoted to that poem. A Latin life of Guthlac, by Felix, probably a monk of Croyland, written in the early eighth century, and a West Saxon prose life of the eleventh century, ultimately derived from the Latin life, are extant, and are available in Gonser's Das angelsachsische Prosa-Leben des hi. Guthlac (Heidelberg, 1909). In their relation to the Latin life by Felix, GUTHLAC I and GUTHLAC II differ widely, and it may reasonably be inferred that they are not the work of a single poet. Forstmann1 believes that GUTHLAC I is independent of the Latin life, though the poet and Felix made use of similar literary materials. This is also the opinion of Brandl.2 Liebermann,3 however, thinks that GUTHLAC I is based on the Latin life, and that wherever the poet of GUTHLAC I does not agree with Felix, he is too vague to be following a specific source. Similarly, Gerould4 believes that GUTHLAC I is dependent upon the Latin life "for its substance, though by no means for its form," that it is the result of a free treatment of the Latin life by an Anglo-Saxon poet, probably a contemporary or follower of Cynewulf. It is generally agreed that GUTHLAC II is based on the Latin life by Felix, and that there is no connection between the Anglo-Saxon poems and the Anglo-Saxon prose life, except as they may both ultimately derive from the Latin life by Felix. On the evidence of the poet's use of his source, as compared with Cynewulf's treatment of his sources in the signed poems, Gerould thinks it very probable that Cynewulf wrote GUTHLAC II, and is inclined to favor Wulker's 1

Banner Beitrage XII, 17. Paul's Grundriss der germanischen Philologie (2d ed.), II, 1, 1039. 8 Neues Archiv fur altere deutsche Geschicktskunde XVIII, 246-247. 4 Modern Language Notes XXXII, 77ff.

2

INTRODUCTION

xxxiii

conjecture1 that the lost ending of the poem contained a Cynewulfian runic signature. 3. AZARIAS The text of AZARIAS begins near the top of fol. 530, where a strip about two and a half inches wide has been cut from the top of the folio, entailing the loss of four manuscript lines, or about six verse lines, from the text of the poem at 1. 28, on fol. 536. As has been pointed out in the part of this Introduction devoted to GUTHLAC, the manuscript evidence strongly suggests that one or more sections have been lost from the beginning of AZARIAS, and CRAiGiE2 is inclined to think that the 191 lines of text contained in AZARIAS are "no more than two sections of a long poem on the theme of Daniel, which may have told the whole story on much the same lines as that in the Junius MS." There is of course no other evidence that a second Daniel poem ever existed in Anglo-Saxon; nor does the internal evidence of the text of AZARIAS alone justify us in assuming that AZARIAS is a fragment of such a second Daniel poem. As it stands in the Exeter Book, AZARIAS might well be a complete poem, consisting of the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children set in a narrative framework. And the Prayer and the Song may well have been the only original cause and purpose of the poem, which would then have been lyric rather than epic in intention. But the evidence of the manuscript, suggesting as it does the loss of matter at the beginning of AZARIAS, forces us to entertain the possibility that there was a second long Daniel poem in Anglo-Saxon, of which the text of AZARIAS, as it is preserved in the Exeter Book, is the only remaining portion. Nothing has been lost from the manuscript at the end of AZARIAS, and there is no reason for believing that this longer Daniel poem, if it ever existed, went further in the story of Daniel than the present close of AZARIAS. The beginning of AZARIAS, as it stands in the Exeter Book, is sufficiently abrupt to arouse suspicion, but the ending is carried out to a highly satisfying climax. The similarity of AZARIAS to the corresponding passages in 1 2

Grundriss zur Geschichte der angdsachsischen Litter atur> p. 183. Philologica II (1923), 11.

xxxiv

INTRODUCTION

DANIEL has been noted in an earlier volume of this edition,1 and the question arises whether AZARIAS, as we have it in the Exeter Book, was drawn upon to supply parts in that more extended narrative. The correspondence between DANIEL and AZARIAS is closer for the earlier part of AZARIAS, containing the Prayer of Azariah, than it is for the part containing the Song of the Three Children. From this fact Gollancz2 conjectured that the poet of DANIEL intentionally omitted the Prayer of Azariah from his poem, and that some other person supplied the omission from a copy of AZARIAS. So also Craigie3 thinks that "the author of the DANIEL for some reason omitted from his poem the Song [Prayer] of Azarias, although he included that of the Three Children. This omission was noticed by the compiler of the Junius MS., as also the fact that a version of the Song could be found elsewhere," that is, in AZARIAS, and he concludes that the scribe of DANIEL merely copied into his text a passage from the text of AZARIAS in the Exeter Book, and copied it so mechanically that he produced an awkward dislocation of the narrative in DANIEL.4 But a comparison of the Prayer of Azariah in AZARIAS with the corresponding passage in DANIEL will show so many dissimilarities of word forms and of word order, so many variations in phrasing, that we can hardly assume that the text of DANIEL at this place was mechanically copied from AZARIAS in the ordinary sense in which AngloSaxon scribes copied from their sources. We must assume two separate versions with a considerable amount of variation, both for the Prayer of Azariah and for the Song of the Three Children. 4. THE PHOENIX The PHOENIX begins near the foot of fol. 556 in the manuscript, with the usual indications of a major sectional division, that is, capitalization of all of the first half-line of the poem except the letters -nen. The poem ends on fol. 656. The first 380 lines of the PHOENIX are a free paraphrase of the Latin poem De ave 1

Records I, The Junius Manuscript, pp. xxxii-xxxiii. The Caedmon Manuscript, pp. Ixxxvi-lxxxvii. 1 Philologica II, 11. 4 See Records I, The Junius Manuscript, p. xxxii.

2

INTRODUCTION

xxxv

Phoenice, ascribed to Lactantius. The remainder of the poem, 11. 381-677, is devoted to a homiletic amplification of the earlier part of the poem, for which no specific source is known. The Egyptian legend of the Phoenix, which in Lactantius we find treated with few distinctly Christian features, becomes thus in the hands of the Anglo-Saxon poet an allegorical representation of the Christian doctrine of the Resurrection. There are no problems of transposition or interpolation to be considered in connection with the PHOENIX, but the identification of the exact source of 11. 381-677, if a single source ever existed, is still an unsettled problem. Gaebler in 18801 pointed out two passages from Christian Latin literature which may have influenced the Anglo-Saxon poet in this part of his work, one from the Hexaemeron of St. Ambrose,2 and one from a commentary on Job formerly attributed to Bede, but certainly not by him.3 The passage in Ambrose may well have influenced the Anglo-Saxon poet in his extension of the traditional treatment of the Phoenix as a symbol of the resurrection of the body to make the bird a symbol of the life of the righteous man and his preparation for eternal life, in 11. 381-588 of the poem. In 11. 589ff. the symbolism is varied, and the Phoenix with its attendant birds becomes the allegorical representation of Christ surrounded by the spirits of the blessed. It is of course quite possible that this variation in the symbolism of the Phoenix is due to the use by the poet of two different homilies, or commentaries, one of which was perhaps derived directly or indirectly from the passage in Ambrose. No more specific identification of the source or sources of the second part of the PHOENIX has been suggested.4 The authorship of the PHOENIX is also a matter of dispute. 1

Anglia III, 516ff. Hexaemeron V, 23, §§79, 80, printed by Migne, Patrol, lot. XIV, 252f. 3 In Job II, 12, printed in Bede, Opera quotquot reperiri potuerunt omnia (Cologne, 1612), IV, col. 556. This commentary is ascribed by Bede himself to Philip the Presbyter (d. 456), see Cook, The Old English Elene, Phoenix, and PhysiologuSy pp. 12 If. The passage in question is an explanation of Job xxix.18. 4 A detailed study of the originality of the Phoenix poet in his use of his sources is given by O. F. Emerson, "Originality in Old English Poetry," Review of English Studies II (1926), 18-31. 2

xxxvi

INTRODUCTION

The many verbal and stylistic resemblances between the poem and the signed works of Cynewulf have been used as a basis for the ascription of the PHOENIX to Cynewulf,1 but the absence of a runic signature puts a heavy burden of proof upon those who argue for Cynewulf's authorship. Cook, the most recent scholar to consider the literary problems connected with the PHOENIX,* thinks that Cynewulf was very probably the author, but if not, that the author of the poem "must have been a monk or ecclesiastic, apparently under the influence of the Cynewulfian poetry, and likely to have lived either within the period of Cynewulf's poetic activity (about 750-800), or soon after"—a very reasonable conclusion from the facts at hand. 5. JULIANA Immediately following the PHOENIX in the manuscript is JULIANA, which begins near the foot of fol. 65£, with a major sectional division similar to that at the beginning of the PHOENIX, and continues to the end of fol. 76a. There are two large gaps in the text of JULIANA, at 11. 288 and 558, caused by the loss of folios from the manuscript; but there are no problems of structure or authorship to be considered. Cynewulf's authorship of the poem has been universally accepted on the evidence of the runic signature in 11. 703-709. The source of the poem is also known with some degree of certainty. Cynewulf must have worked from a Latin text identical with, or similar to, the life of St. Juliana published under the title "Acta auctore anonymo ex xi veteribus MSS." in the Bollandist Acta sanctorum under the date of February 16.3 Glode, in his study of the source of JULIANA/ concluded from the discrepancies between the poem and the Bollandist Latin text that Cynewulf worked not from this particular Latin version, but from a somewhat different one, perhaps extant but unpublished. Garnett, on the 1 Especially by Gaebler, Anglia III, 502-516. Strong disagreement with Gaebler's conclusions was expressed by Fulton, Modern Language Notes XI (1896), 146ff. 2 A. S. Cook, The Old English Elene, Phoenix, and Physiologus, pp. xxvixxviii. 8 A eta sanctorum, Februarius, torn. 2, pp. 875-879. * Anglia XI, 146-158.

INTRODUCTION

xxxvii

other hand, after a careful comparison of the Anglo-Saxon and the Latin texts, decided that all the differences between the two texts could be explained as the product of poetic imagination.1 Either of these views is defensible, and the difference between them is perhaps of slight significance. In the absence of any closer Latin version, the text in the Ada sanctorum may be accepted, for all practical purposes, as Cynewulf's original. 6. THE WANDERER AND THE SEAFARER Although the two poems entitled the WANDERER (fol. 76678a) and the SEAFARER (fol. 816-83a) are found at different places in the manuscript, they present similar problems of structure and literary history, and may profitably be considered together. In each of these poems a relatively specific treatment of the subject matter—in the one case the desolation of a man who is lordless, in the other case the joys and hardships of a seafaring life—is followed by an epilogue in more general terms, Christian and homiletic in spirit. This apparent lack of structural homogeneity has led to the suspicion of composite origin for these two poems, and to a number of attempts at critical dissection of the texts. The higher criticism of the SEAFARER has been largely concerned with the question of a dialogue structure in that poem. The frequent occurrence of the wordforfion, at 11. 33, 39, 58, 64, and 72, apparently in an adversative sense, led Rieger to the belief that the SEAFARER was a dialogue between an old sailor and a young man about to go to sea; and in 1869 Rieger published a text of the poem arranged as a dialogue.2 To the old sailor he assigned 11. l-33a, 39-47, 53-57, and 72-124, to the young man 11. 335-38, 48-52, and 58-71. Kluge3 accepted the dialogue theory, but applied it somewhat differently, recognizing only two speeches, 11. 1-330 by the old sailor, and 11. 33&-64a4 by the young man, and thus closing the dialogue at 1. 64. Wiilker5 1

Publications of the Modern Language Association XIV, 279-298. M. Rieger, "Seefahrer als Dialog hergestellt," Zeitschrift fur deutsche Philologie I, 334-339. 3 Englische Studien VI, 322ff. 4 Or 1. 66a? Kluge is quite ambiguous at this point. 6 Grundriss zur Geschichte der angelsachsischen Litteraturt pp. 210f. 2

xxxviii

INTRODUCTION

also placed the end of the dialogue at 1. 64, but preferred Rieger's division of the speeches. But Lawrence in 1902 quite definitely disposed of the dialogue theory by pointing out that the word forpon need not be taken in an adversative sense, but may serve merely as a loose connective.1 It is impossible to consider here in detail the numerous structural analyses which have been made of the WANDERER and the SEAFARER.2 Typical of these analyses are Rieger's division of the WANDERER into an epic framework, 11. 1-7, 111115, and a lyric nucleus, 11. 8-110, and Sieper's theory that the more general treatment of the elegiac theme in 11. 58-110 of that poem is a later addition to the original text, 11. 8-57; or, in the SEAFARER, not only the separation from the remainder of the poem of 11. 103-124, which really seem not to belong there, but further analysis into an original SEAFARER, ending at 1. 64a (Kluge) or at 1. 58 (Sieper), and a homiletic part (11. 645 ff. or 11. 59 ff.) attached to the poem at some later date. A more ambitious analysis of the WANDERER and the SEAFARER was published in 1902 by Boer,3 who advanced the hypothesis that the two poems together contain the remains of three older poems, one of them a dialogue, which were rearranged, with the addition of new material, to form the two texts which are preserved in the Exeter Book. Craigie4 would attribute the apparent logical breaks which he finds in the two poems, after 1. 57 of the WANDERER and 1. 64a of the SEAFARER, to the use by the compiler of the Exeter Book of a defective original with misplaced leaves. Lawrence's objections to Boer's theory5 apply also, in general, to the other structural analyses which have been made of the two poems, and the 1 Journal of Germanic Philology IV (1903), 463ff. See also the note on the text of Seafarer 27, on p. 296, below. The word forpon in Wanderer 37 seems to have a similar force. 2 See, for example, Rieger, Zeitschrift fur deutsche Philologie I (1869), 322ff.; Kluge, Englische Studien VI (1883), 322ff., VIII (1885), 472ff.; Sieper, Die allenglische Elegie (1915), pp. 183ff., 196ff.; Imelmann, Forschungen zur altenglischen Poesie (1920), pp. 39ff., 118ff. 3 Zeitschrift fiir deutsche Philologie XXXV, Iff. < Philologica II (1923), 14ff. 6 See Journal of Germanic Philology IV, 460ff.

INTRODUCTION

xxxix

conclusion expressed by Lawrence, that "there seems to be no reason to assume that the WANDERER and the SEAFARER are not preserved in essentially their original form, with the exception of the homiletic addition [this is, 11. 103-124] to the latter poem," has met with very general acceptance. The fact that an Anglo-Saxon poem does not fulfill modern expectations with regard to structural unity and coherence, is no argument for the diversity of origin of its several parts. And in the WANDERER and the SEAFARER, in spite of the minor inconsistencies and the abrupt transitions which we find, structural dissection must be accepted with caution as a formula for the establishment of the text. There has been considerable doubt where the first speech in the WANDERER closes, and Grein, Sweet, Kluge, Wulker and Sieper do not set any quotation mark to indicate the close of this speech in their texts. Kershaw puts the close of the speech after 1. 29a. The change of person at this point makes it reasonably probable that the speech ends here, and the quotation mark has accordingly been set at this place in the text. 7. THE GIFTS OF MEN, VAINGLORY, THE FORTUNES OF MEN, THE ORDER OF THE WORLD, AND THE JUDGMENT DAY I It is convenient to notice at this point five of the shorter poems of the Exeter Book which, although they appear at widely different places in the manuscript, form a highly homogeneous collection of didactic or homiletic verse. These poems are called, in the present edition, the GIFTS OF MEN (fol. 78earfe 103 mid 139 -wrah 171 hosp 208 -eardode 242 -cyn 276 ofer 315 godes

13a

354 ond

136 14a 1229 ond

266 1267 }?roht 27a 1301 -daede 276 1334 wuldre

28yrnenne 1162 blissad 1196hroJ>er 1229 reotatJ 1266 otSclifetS 1301 bealo1334 gehwylc 1369 gesefnan 1402 efenmicle 1434 hleor 1469 forlete 1499 mine 1531 deope 1565 beam 1601 waldend 1637 J?e 1664 dryhten

Ixix

INTRODUCTION GUTHLAC

Folio 326 330

336 340

Line ISe

to

29 in

63 sceal 94 had

346 350

130 monnes 167 -lices

356 360

198 maran 233 gena

366 370 376 380 386

264 monige 298 wic 334 onhylde 369 aer 399 after

390 396 400

432 ana 466 daeda 499 in

406 410

420

531 Micel 567 sot5faestra 603 wideferh 636 naefre

426 430

673 Ne 706 siJ?J?an

530

IHim

416

Line 29 claene 63 gehwylcum 94 haligne 130 bimurnaS 167 gielp198 moncynne 233 )?a 264 Cleopedon 298 J?a 334hleor 368 ge}?onc 3990 he 432 earferungen 969 -daelden (MS. dseled) 1003 inne 1038 beotS

486 1072 ac 490 1108elne 496 1 140 strong 500 1172 J?a 506 1209 hyge 510 1244 -fast 516 1278 aaj?ela 520 13101eoma 526 1343 to

Line 771 gaastcunde 804forberat5 833 he 868 drync 901 dreamum 9346 ge969 ge-

1003 ej?elbodan 1038 dogor 1072 leahtor 1107unsofte 1140stalgongum 11 72 word 1209 heortan 1244 sigor1278 se 1310 heofonlic 1343 laellond 314hinderweard 349 seceo3

Folio

61a

Line 350 Swa

616 62a

385 ond 420 o)?)?aet

420 mengu 453 aelmes-

626 63a

453 earmum 488 sendetS

488 snude 522 *led

sendaS) 522 Jxmne 555 bitolden 589 Donne 623 Jjrymsitten-

555 lame 588 byrig 623 sy 656 hleoJ?or

636 64a 646 65a 656

to

(MS.

dum

Line 385 sindrea-

mum san

656 haligra

JULIANA

656 660

8 brad

666 67a 676 680

43 under 77 on 111 Jxme 149 leasin-

686 69a 696 700 706

187 nacode 223 wideferh 255 a* 289 ealra 323 gehwaes

766 77a

10ft 33 nalaes

gum

8 rice 42 feoh-

ge-

streon 76 lofian 111 lacum 149 ic 187 niSwraece 223 waldetS 255 sigortifre 288 genom 323 yfla 356 gecnawe

71a

356 Jjaet

390 bidae-

716 72a

391 in 426 sot5faes-

426 witS 458 l>u

726 73a 736

458 to 491 godes 525 -cwom

740

559 georne

491 butan 525 bi558 gelomp 594dryht-

746

594 dryhtne

750 756 760

627 J)a 660 aef ter 696 )?set

tum

led

na

627 ormaetu 659 Jjearfe 695 micel 731 Amen

THE WANDERER 33 freorig 65 woruldrice

776 780

65 Wita 98 wundrum

98 weal

INTRODUCTION

Ixxi

THE GIFTS OF MEN Folio

7Sa 7Sb 79a

Line 8 aenig 40 stunaS

to

Line 8 bit* 40 bord 73 hradtaefle

Folio 796 800

Line to 74 Sum 108 milde

Line 108 monna

PRECEPTS

80a 806

28J?is

28 gemunde 64 J?onne

810

64 Jm

94 geheald

THE SEAFARER

816

S2a

IMseg 34 streamas

34hean 68 gehwylce

69 a* 103 Micel

102 leofat*

84a

40 searwum

846

71 oft

71 abylgnesse

826 83a

VAINGLORY

S3a

836

6 beam

6 agen 40 symbelwlonc

WIDSITH

846

S5a

856

14 para 46aetsomne

13 wile 46 sibbe 73 gedales

86a 866

74 beorhtra 102 giefe

87a

131 on

102 cwen 131 onfond

THE FORTUNES OF MEN S7a

876

17 lifes

17 leas 50«r

88a

50 his

886

82 snere

82 snellice

MAXIMS I

886

S9a

896

90a

10 ne 38 gebunden

62 sceal

10 adl 38 J?rage 62 eorod

906 91a 916

90 forman 1 14 morj>or 145 fereS

worod) 89 gegretan

92a 926

175 waeran 204J7SS

(MS.

114fedan 145 mon 175eaforan 204 a

Ixxii

INTRODUCTION THE ORDER OF THE WORLD

Folio 926 930

Line

to

30 bibod

Line 30 agen 63 cneorissum

Folio 936 940

Line to 64 lifgendra 95 him

Line 95nis

RIMING POEM 940 946 950

21 -giefu 55 Dreamas

21hyht54 tinned 85 wuldre

956

85 generede

THE PANTHER 31 mon)?waere

956

960 966

32 lufsum 64 past

64 sellend

THE WHALE 966 970

23 geliste

23 raeste 58 faratS

976

59 unware

THE PARTRIDGE 2 wundorlicne

976

980

3 faeger

SOUL AND BODY II 980 986 990

16 }?am 48 ancenda

16 to 48 se 80 aef re

996 1000

80 on Illbeot5

111 geaflas

DEOR 1000

22 wide

1006

14 J?ine

1010

2, 15wrugon 3, 37wa2gfatu 3, 72 swij?feorm

1006

22 folc

WULF AND EADWACER 1010

14 seldcymas

RIDDLES 1-59

1016

3, 1 Hwilum

1020 3, 37 wide

1026 3, 72 Saga 1030 6, 7 on 1036 9, 11 J?y 1040 12, 13 hwaet 1046 15, 1 Hals 1050 16, 4 -winnes

6, 7 winne 9, 11 swaesra 12, 13 Saga 14, 19 hatte 16, 4 ge20, 2 minum

Ixxiii

INTRODUCTION Folio Line to 1056 20, 21eof 106a 21, 1 Neb 1066 22, 20 ellenrofe 1070 25, 6 ceorles 107626, 28 haelejmm 1080 29,31yftfaet 108631, 13 heo 109a 33, 5 Was 1096 35, 14 -faest 1100 39, Saeghwylcne 1106 40, 6mec

Line 20, 35 compes 22, 20 oj?erne 25, 6 cyrtenu 26, 27 maere 29, 2 laedan 31, 13331 33, 4 scearpe 35, 14 wis39 , 5 sundor 40, 6 He

40, 41 worn

Folio Line to Line 1 1 10 40, 41 wra$40, 73 worscrafu dum 111640, 73nemnaS 40, 108 he 1120 41, 1 edniwu 43, 9hlaforde 1126 43, 9 hyret5 47, 6 wihte 51, 2 swear1130 47, 6)>y te 54, 9 stunda 1136 51, 2 waeran 1140 54, 9ge57, 2sind hwam 1146 57, 2 blace 59, 16 cwaeden 115a 59, 17 hringes

THE WIFE'S LAMENT 29oflongad

1150

1156

1160

6hyhst

1156

30sindon

THE JUDGMENT DAY 6mae1166 37heremaegengen cyn117a 70ful(JfS. inga fol) 37 heard1176 99 lame lie

70 gehyrwetS 99 mid

RESIGNATION 1176 1180

8min

Seal 40 gearone

1186 119a 1196

40 rad 70 hwaej?re 101 fleet

69 mid 100 saewe

THE DESCENT INTO HELL 1196 1200 1206

15 -niht 47 hjelej?a

15 caster47 eac 78 gewitte

121a 1216

78 ond 109 J?set

ALMS-GIVING 1216

2 rej?ehyg-

122a

2 -dig

HOMILETIC FRAGMENT II 1220

3 bind

1226

8 sit5

1226

4 mid

RIDDLE 60 123a

8 aefre

108 Crist

Ixxiv

INTRODUCTION THE HUSBAND'S MESSAGE

Folio 1230

Line

Line 21 drefde

to

Line to 22 sij?)?an

Line

2 burston 31 wong

31 Hryre

128a 84, 2 strongne 1286 84, 35 snottor 1290 86, 6 earmas 1296 88, 24 eardian 130a 91, Snebbe 1306 93, 23 aglffica

84, 35 mode

Folio 1236

THE RUIN 2 burgstede

1236

124a 1246

RIDDLES 61-94

1246 125a 62, 4ofeste 1256 66, 2 -wyrm 126a 1266 127a 1276

70,4)7e 73, 2ond 75, 1 Ic 81, 1 Ic

62, 4 on 66, 2 hond70,4gesceapo 73, 2 hruse 74, 5 cwicu 80, llhatte 84, 2 ryne

86, 5 twa 88, 24 sceata 91, Sbregde 93, 23 ic 95, 13 gehwylcum

VIII TABLE II SECTIONAL DIVISIONS IN THE POEMS CHRIST [I] Chr. 1-701 [II] Chr. 71-163 [III] Chr. 164-274 [IV] Chr. 275-377 [V] Chr. 378-439 [VI] Chr. 440-516 [VII] Chr. 517-599 [VIII] Chr. 600-685 [IX] Chr. 686-778

[X] Chr. 779-866 [XI] Chr. 867-971 [XII] Chr. 972-1080 [XIII] Chr. 1081-1198 [XIV] Chr. 1199-1326 [XV] Chr. 1327-1427 [XVI] Chr. 1428-1529 [XVII] Chr. 1530-1664 GUTHLAC

[I] Guth. 1-92 [II] Guth. 93-169 1

[III] Guth. 170-261 [IV] Guth. 262-368*

Incomplete at the beginning through the loss of one or more folios before fol. 8. 2 This section is incomplete at the end, and Section [V] is incomplete at the beginning through the loss of a folio between fol. 37 and fol. 38; see Introduction, p. xii.

INTRODUCTION [V] Guth. 369-403 [VI] Guth. 404-529 [VII] Guth. 530-617 [VIII] Guth. 618-721 [IX] Guth. 722-818 [X] Guth. 819-893

[XI] [XII] [XIII] [XIV] [XV] [XVI]

Ixxv

Guth. 894-975 Guth. 976-1059 Guth. 1060-1133 Guth. 1134-1223 Guth. 1224-1304 Guth. 1305-13791

AZARIAS [I] Az. 1-72

[II] Az. 73-191 PHOENIX

[I] Ph. 1-84 [II] Ph. 85-181 [III] Ph. 182-264 [IV] Ph. 265-349

[V] Ph. [VI] Ph. [VII] Ph. [VIII] Ph.

350-423 424-517 518-588 589-677

JULIANA [I] Jul. 1-104 [II] Jul. 105-224 [III] Jul. 225-344 [IV] Jul. 345-453

[V] Jul. 454-558 [VI] Jul. 559-606* [VII] Jul. 607-731 MAXIMS I

[I] Maxims I 1-70 [II] Maxims I 71-137

[III] Maxims I 138-204 DEOR

[I] Deor 1-7 [II] Deor 8-13 [III] Deor 14-17

[IV] Deor 18-20 [V] Deor 21-27 [VI] Deor 28-42 THE JUDGMENT DAY

[I] Judgment Day 1-80

[II] Judgment Day 81-119

THE HUSBAND'S MESSAGE [I] Husband's Message 1-12 [II] Husband's Message 13-25 1

[III] Husband's Message 25-53

Incomplete at the end through the loss of the upper part of fol. 53. This section is incomplete at the beginning through the loss of a folio between fol. 73 and fol. 74. 2

INTRODUCTION

Ixxvi

IX

TABLE III SMALL CAPITALS IN THE MANUSCRIPT

2Iu

50 Eala 50 Sancta 52 In 56 Ac 74 Arece 78 Ne 79 In 82aln S2b In 88 Sancta 102 In 112 Swa 119 Nu 130 Eala 138 lu 139 In 167 Ic 197 So3 201 In 214 Eala 282 Swylce 306 Wlat 326 Nu 370 Ara 456 Da 468 Haefde 481 Farat5 491 Da 512 Nu 527 Da 533 Gewitan 534 In 547 Da* 560 In

CHRIST 850 Nu 561 Nu 927 Ond 562 In 937 Mona 577 In 941 Wile 580 In 586 Hwa* 994 Seo}?e3 1002 Ac 621 Ic 627 Hwa* 1007 Donne 1011 Ond 638 In 642 Noldan 1033 In 1039 Donne 654 Ne 1047 Ne 657 In 1053 Ne 659 Da 664 Sumum 1115 Eall lllSMagun 668 Sum 1134 In 670 Sum 1163 Hwa* 671 Sum 1204 Swa 672 Sum 673 Sumum 1221 Donne 1225 Ond 676 Sum 1232 Donne 678 Sum 1237 An 679 Sum 1242 O]?er 680 Sum 1262 Donne 683 Nyle 1280 Magun 724 In 1284 Donne 732 In 1292 Ne 735 In 1301 Wsere 748 In 1315 Inge764 In J?oncas 787 In 1316 Ne 788 In 791 Donne 1344 OnfoS 1359 Donne 793 Ic 1362 Onginnet* 815 Ic 830 In 1381er 43 Sum 48 Sumum 51 Sum

58 Sum 67a Sumum 676 Sumum 69 Sumum

74Ful 77 Sum 80 Sum 85 Sum

Ixxx

INTRODUCTION MAXIMS I

7 Meotud 22R*d 41 In

51 In 666 In 67 Inwyrcan

67 In 81 Cyning 97 In

112 Ne 1220 In

THE ORDER OF THE WORLD 8 Is 11 lu 19 In

21 Ne 23 Ic

49 In 51 In

13 In

33 Mod

IQDaet 38Daer

55 Swa

74 In 90 In

THE RIMING POEM 4Qa Ic

43 Nu

THE PANTHER 59 pone

59 In

66 Si)?J?an

69 Swa 69 Sanctus

THE WHALE 8 Is 16 In 19 Donne

27 Donne 30 In

53 Donne 55 Innofce

58 In 71 In

THE PARTRIDGE 12 Uton SOUL AND BODY II 9 Sceal 15 CleopatS 22 Hwaet

30 In 49 Ne

54 Ne 84 In

86 Donne 111 Gifer

RIDDLES 1-59 l,8Ic 3, 59 Ic 5, 9 In 5,9Ic 6,6Ic 8, 6 In 9, 3 In 9, 3 Innan 12, 10 In 15, 6 In 16, 2 Ic 16, 4a Ic 17, 2 Innan 17, 9 Is 17, 9 InnatS

20, 17 Ic 20,22NymJ?e 23, 2 Ic 23, 3 Ic 23, 4 Ic 23, 7 Ic 23, 10 Ne 27, 6 In 27, 6 Nu 27, 9 Sona 27, 15 Ic 27, 16 De 28, 7 In 28, 7 Innan 29, 7 Da

31,3Ic 32,11 In 35, 2 Innate 37, 6 Innat5 37, 7 In 39, 7 Ne 40, 16 Ic 40, 23 Ic 40, 28 Ic 40, 38 Ic 40, 42 Ic 40, 44 Ic 40, 46 Ic 40, 48 Ic 40, 50 Ic

40, 58 Ic 40, 60 Ic 40, 62 Ic 40, 64 Ic 40, 66 Ic 40, 72 Ic 40, 82 Ic 40, 84 Ic 40, 88 Ic 40, 92 Mara 40, 92 Ic 40, 94 Ic 40, 101 Ac 40, 105 Mara 41, 6 Ne

Ixxxi

INTRODUCTION 42, 5 Ic 43, 1 Ic 43, 2 In 46, 7 Insittendra 47, 4 In

55, 7 Ic 55, 13 In 56, 1 Inne 56, 10 Ic 58, 9 Isernes 58, 10 ItetS

48, 1 Ic 49, 8 Ic 52, 1 In 53, 6 In 54, 2 In 55, 1 In

58, 14 In 59, 1 In 59, 7 In 59, 9 In 59, 17 In

THE WIFE'S LAMENT 2Ic

7Ic

5Ic

13 In

THE JUDGMENT DAY 50 In

119 In

RESIGNATION 5Ic 20 Ic 40 In

91 Is 96 Ic

41 Nu 44 In 76 In

105 Wudu 110 Is

THE DESCENT INTO HELL 23 lohannis 40 In 50 lohannis 56 Ahead 71 In

76 Eala 80 In 84 Eala 86 In 97 In

8a An

18 In

99 In 100 In 103 In 104 In 107 Nu

128 In 131 In 135 In 135 lordane

HOMILETIC FRAGMENT II RIDDLE 60 13 Ingejxmc THE RUIN 19 In

32 lu

RIDDLES 61-94 62, 1 Ingonges 67, 13 Ic 71, 2 lu 72, 9 Ic 83, 6 Ic 83, 12 Ac

84, 33 Swa 85, 3 Ic 85, 6a Ic 85, 6a In 85, 6b Ic 88, 9 Ac

88, 15 Nu 88, 18 Is 88, 19 Ic 88, 21 Ac 88, 29 Innan 93, 11 In

93, 14 Ic 93, 28 Nu 95, 1 Indryhten 95, 8 Ic

Ixxxii

INTRODUCTION

X TABLE IV ACCENTS IN THE MANUSCRIPT fol 8* Chr. 2 16

4sie Uhtis

fol. 9*> Chr. 98 aworpen 99 had 101 a fol. Pb Chr. 114sunnan 115 ax fol. 10*. Chr. 140 & 167altetan 170sarcwida

fol. list

Chr. 219 nfi /0/. 12b8 CAr. 352 nan /of. 13*. CAr.386cjrnn /a/. 7 Jb ar.404fr6a

fol. 14* Chr. 444 had /o/. 14b CAr. 464 an cenned 475 f re*a /a/. 75a Or. 502 £ hofun 513 agend 516eJ?elst611

fol. 16a*

1

Ch*. 567a|nes 568dhl6d 582 a 586 nil fol. 16b Chr.S90m6t 596 Iff 604 »t fol. 17& Chr. 627 (is 628 l£omum 6316s 632 tid 633 awraec 644 mislf c 645 f £la /o/. J7b CAr. 658fr6m 671 & 677 s£ /o/. 7^ Chr. 692 a haef en 702 a | stag 703 h6r 704afyllen|dra bad fol. 19tf Chr. 759aras 784hl6|dun 786 hti /